Originally posted by Razorback Show me one paper that cites observational data and not climate modeling. In the 70's there were hundreds of climate experts with peer reviewd papers saying we were entering a new ice age. It didnt happen.
Incorrect. There were plenty saying we needed to find out more because if the pattern from the last million years persisted we were due to enter another ice age, but the accepted view of the scientific community at the time was that we needed to learn more and learn it quickly, not that were plunging into another ice age.
Originally posted by Razorback In the 1800's there were peer reviwed papers saying Communism was the ultimate form of government or that man would never walk on the moon.
That doesnt seem like the type of thing you would have peer reviewed papers on. Are you sure you know what a scientific paper is?
Originally posted by Razorback
You are confused of the difference between science and pseudo science my friend.
But just to afford you a level of courtesy by researching the answer to your question, a level of courtesy you have afforded neither me nor yourself.
Do your own bloody research. The facts are as I stated. The published material on the subject is on the side of human caused global warming by an overwhelming margin.
For example a paper (itself published and peer reviewed) in 2003 evaluated the 928 papers published in the journal Science between 1993 and 2003 with the phrase climate change. 75% explicitly or implicitly came on the side of human caused global warming. 25% confined themselves to methods and took no position at all. Not even one paper came in against human caused global warming.
Originally posted by Razorback
The difference with the eminent group of climate experts you call "the denialists" is that they base thier findings on observational evidence as opposed to emotional predictions of global catastrophe. I can not belive you have even bothered to research your own opinions because your arguments have the characteristic thinness of the underinformed.
The observational evidence is that the earth is warming at the fastest rate in nearly 100 years at the same time as we are dumping gigatonnes of a compound known to trap energy in the atmosphere. We can also go beyond observing and actually measure competing explanations for this increase in atmospheric energy and find that they cannot be the cause.
But just to afford you a level of courtesy by researching the answer to your question, a level of courtesy you have afforded neither me nor yourself. Here is a short list of well respected sceintists who strongly dispute the unsubstantiated notion of Co2 driving our climate. Please do me and your credibility the courtesy of coming back with something more substantial than personal insults regarding cults of 911 and the moon landings. Dr Roy Spencer, Weather Satelite Team Leader, NASA
Professor Philip Scott, Dept of Biogeography, University of London
Dr Piers Corben Climate Forcaster, Weather Action (Nobel Prize Nominate)
Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottowa
Professor Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physiscs, University of Jerusalem
Professor Tim Ball, Dept of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
Patrick Moore, Co Founder, Greenpeace
Professor John Cristy Lead Author IPCC (thats the knockout punch right there, he had his name removd from the final IPCC report because it was so fanciful, they chose him and he didnt agree with the fiction) And I quote him :
"Ive often heard it said that there is a concensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change in the climate system. Well I am one scientist and there are many, who simply say that, that is not true" Take this simple premise and think about it. Im assuming you agree the world has been through several ice ages ? If you do then ask yourself how those ice ages ended ? Was it prehistoric deisel vehicles and stone age factories that warmed the climate ? Take a moment to think about it. Then click this link : http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFMPP21C..12V See how much of that you can understand. As for the clip.... droughts... floods.... hurricanes... desertisation... Damn thats never happened before... we must be causing it.... rofl AND STOP TALKING ABOUT MECURY IN RIVERS.... DAMN GUYS THIS IS ABOUT Co2 AND THE WEATHER MAKE ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD OF HIJACKING THIS ONE!!
When you ask them for documented evidence that has stood up to the review of their peers the typical next move for the conspiracy crowd is to trot out a lot of “experts” with letters behind their names. And guess what…
In real science one gets to be considered an authority based on quality and significance of the papers you publish not some random person on an internet forum calling you an expert. This is why my challenge to you was to come up with *papers* that support your view. Instead you try to derail that with “experts”.
Well here is a little bit about some of your “respected experts”:
Tim Ball – Hasn’t been on faculty at the University of Winnipeg in over a decade, and the school has never even had a climatology department
Richard Lindzen – Was fairly well respected due to his position at MIT, but hasn’t published anything relevant in a long time. Famously, he challenged climate scientists to a $10 000 bet about whether the earth would be warmer in 20 years then it is today. When he was called he refused to accept the bet unless he was given *50:1* odds. Clearly he isn’t very confident in his position
Patrick Michaels – Caught lying about receiving the funding he has received from the energy industry.
Phillip Stot (not Scott) – Retired professor of geography with no qualification in climate science.
Paul Reiter – Seems well respected in the field of infectious diseases but has zero qualifications as a climate scientist. His participation in the IPCC report dealt with the potential spread of Malaria due to global warming.
Piers Corbyn –No academic standing whatsoever. He’s a businessman trying to sell his own weather prediction business and has never published a paper relevant to climate change.
Patrick Moore – Amateur astronomer with no background in climate science
Roy Spencer – His specialty is weather forecast and measurement. Weather is a distinctly different field from climate, and his strongest claim against global warming is that global variability could mean there was a period 1000 years ago that was as warm as the last 25 years have been. The significant thing about the last 25 years isn’t the absolute temperature but the rate of warming, and there is very little doubt that the last 10 years have been warmer then the period he refers to.
John Cristy – Was co chair of the 2001 IPCC report, he did not “have his name removed” he simply didn’t hold that position for the most recent report. Although he is a more of a contrarian that simply proves that such people do participate in the IPCC process. His quotes, though, don’t paint him as a person who supports your opinions “It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way.”
Humans are a virus, they are chopping away and polluting up the earth as we type on this forum. They must be eliminated. Also, George W really p*sses me off. Do I need a reason.
Oke. It's really simple. I'm using absolute scanario's here. So the bad scanrio's are the worst case scenario's.
Either we do nothing. And there's no global warming. Perfect. Either we do something. And there's notglobal warming. Result:We lost billions and billions and billions of euro's switching to safer, healthier, more independent and cleaner economies. The world will hit a huge economical crisis and recession. Either we do something and there is global warming. Perfect. Or we do nothing and there is global warming. The world hits a worse economical kick in the balls than the 30's depression and the fall of the roman empire combined. Disaster after disaster will hit every country in the world. Millions will die in a very short timespan, damaging entire economies. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Wars will break out ovr scarce resources and services like water, electricity and medical care will be in danger or even non-existent, even in developed countries. Extremist regimes will rise up everywhere. Small scale nuclear wars will be no exception. Countries will break up, revolutions will spread and civil disobidience will ravage democratically elected governments. Then there are the horrible ecological catastrophes. Species will die out, destroying the already weak balance of species that provide us humans. Sea levels will rise, flooding entire nations. It will take us hundreds of years to recover. Let's say your pensions will be highly insecure...
Seems clear to me what the cheapest option is...
Option 3:
Either we do something and there is global warming. Perfect
How is that perfect?
If we try to do something, but it makes no difference because global warming happens despite what we do or don't do, then option 3 is far from perfect. If you want a worst case scenario, it would be: We do something, we get the economic crisis from option 2 AND the disaster from option 4.
Think of it this way.. The human body needs to stay at a specific temperature in order to function correctly.. The temperature in the body is regulated by sweating, hair standing up, goosebumps, faster heart beats, what ever... If the body temperature goes one way or the other.. then that can cause really bad affects
Temperature (C) Symptoms
28 muscle failure
30 loss of body temp. control
33 loss of consciousness
37 normal
42 central nervous system breakdown
44 death*
All it takes is alittle change in temperature.. Just 4 degrees each way and you could cause longterm damage..
Now.. If Your body was in a isolated ideal environment the temperature would never change..But just add a few fever inducing microscopic bacteria and that could very shortly skew the temperature upwards.. All it takes is a few micro-organisms to screw with the balance.....
Now apply that to the earth... Where things that the world does to maintain its temperature are things like rain. volcanoes, blah blah blah... And humans are bacteria...
It doesn't matter that humans produce less greenhouse gases then the earth does.. because all it takes is enough to throw off the balance/regulation.. which could lead to long term damage..
And yet Taureg and Eskimo's both survive in climates far more more varied than 4 degrees.
Neither is the balance of nature static. It changes every instance of every day. As one organism dies out, another moves in to colonise the free resources.
The balance is anything but fragile. Millions of lifeforms have become extinct without life ever once ending.
Humans are are about as resilient to changes in the enviroment as any lifeform in the history of the planet has ever been.
There are plenty of fever inducing microscopic bacteria out there already. Always have been always will be. New ones evolve every day. Man has never been better equiped and had better success dealing with these organisms than in the CO2 producing industrial age.
Oke. It's really simple. I'm using absolute scanario's here. So the bad scanrio's are the worst case scenario's.
Either we do nothing. And there's no global warming. Perfect. Either we do something. And there's notglobal warming. Result:We lost billions and billions and billions of euro's switching to safer, healthier, more independent and cleaner economies. The world will hit a huge economical crisis and recession. Either we do something and there is global warming. Perfect. Or we do nothing and there is global warming. The world hits a worse economical kick in the balls than the 30's depression and the fall of the roman empire combined. Disaster after disaster will hit every country in the world. Millions will die in a very short timespan, damaging entire economies. Hundreds of millions of people will be displaced. Wars will break out ovr scarce resources and services like water, electricity and medical care will be in danger or even non-existent, even in developed countries. Extremist regimes will rise up everywhere. Small scale nuclear wars will be no exception. Countries will break up, revolutions will spread and civil disobidience will ravage democratically elected governments. Then there are the horrible ecological catastrophes. Species will die out, destroying the already weak balance of species that provide us humans. Sea levels will rise, flooding entire nations. It will take us hundreds of years to recover. Let's say your pensions will be highly insecure...
Seems clear to me what the cheapest option is...
I'll play the absoolute game with you.
Option 2 triggers global economic meltdown. War, plague and famine. The established economies hobble themselves and restrict the emegence of new economies. That which was a supportable infrastructure no longer is, hundreds of millions of people starve worldwide. Hundreds of millions of people lose their access to medecine world wide, as the increased prices of manufacture simply deny themreasonable supply. The world peace secured by the existing order of superpowers collapses. In the power vacuum that ensues chaos and death reign. War after War on a Global scale not seen for 60 years.
Option 4 also occours from several thousands other reasons, all infinitely more immediately pressing and likely to occour than Global Warming. By the time Global Warming gets round to killing us, we are already long since dead.
In your scenario, not radically changing an effective and successful economic model produces economic meltdown.
In my scenario, radically changing an effective and successful economic model produces economic meltdown.
I prefer mine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
I don't let people without a track history of mechanical success mess with my cars engine. Neither am I keen to let a load of pot smoking hippies mess with our industry. In fact the only thing Hippes do well is grow pot. So if they aren't telling you how to grow pot, seek advice elsewhere.
I would suggest that when it comes to decisions affecting the global economy, that you leave them to the people who know most about them. In this case, that would be international industrialists. Hippies hate them, but they know best. Further to this, if you were intrested in maintaining a successful economy, if you were intrested in it's radical reform, I would look to the advice of the current world leaders and highest achievers. India, China and the U.S. for guidance, instead of taking the advice of the stagnating and floundering economies of Europe.
That said, if we Europeans could convince the U.S., India and China to all curb their production....to all become as non productive as we are...then we might be able to take over!
Patrick Moore – Amateur astronomer with no background in climate science
No way!
You dissed Patrick Moore in favour of Michael Moore!
If you base scientific qualification on the review of your peers, who is better placed in life to make this review than Patrick Moore? All the greatest scientists in the last 70 years are his peers. He has interviewed all those to be found in the fields of astronomy and planetology. Asked all of them their opinions.
Neither of you don't really know what you're talking about here. All the volcanoes in the world cause only a fraction of the amount of CO2 we manage to produce.
Look things up before you state them as facts. kthxbai.
Wait a minute Baff! Eskimo's??? Thats a poor analogy...Do you even know the measures that are taken by those people are extreme so as they can live?
For one, Eskimo's aren't their own Ethnic minority, they're natives.
To stay warm, they wear Caribou pelts with the fur facing inwards towards they're skin.
The Igloo isn't a funny looking hut with no purpose.
The miracle of fire was also discovered by these people as well.
To ensure further warmth, they use a complex set of leather ropes to make sure that NO air gets in or out.
They still live up there in the great wide north and they still use Igloo's...
So I don't think the Eskimo's are a good analogy at all.
Taureg's (while I'm not horridly familiar with them.) live in the desert and also take drastic steps to keep make sure that their Core body temperature doesn't drop. Overall, that wasn't a good arguement...
Nonsense, both cultures survive in extremes of temperature. Eskimo's aren't an analogy, they are an example. They are living testament to man's ability not to be wiped out by a climatic change in temperaure of + or - 4 degrees.
Not only does man survive and even prosper in those enviroments, but all the animal/vegetable resources he needs, do to.
If the world gets hotter, then the species from hot climates will prosper and spread. If it get's colder then the species that are better adapted to the colder climates will prosper and spread.
As you have elaborated, the species of man already has all the necessary technology to survive any such a paltry change.
Nonsense, both cultures survive in extremes of temperature. Eskimo's aren't an analogy, they are an example. They are living testament to man's ability not to be wiped out by a climatic change in temperaure of + or - 4 degrees. Not only does man survive and even prosper in those enviroments, but all the animal/vegetable resources he needs, do to. If the world gets hotter, then the species from hot climates will prosper and spread. If it get's colder then the species that are better adapted to the colder climates will prosper and spread. As you have elaborated, the species of man already has all the necessary technology to survive any such a paltry change.
Eskimo's can preserve their way of life because the north pole is melting.
The observational evidence is that the earth is warming at the fastest rate in nearly 100 years at the same time as we are dumping gigatonnes of a compound known to trap energy in the atmosphere. We can also go beyond observing and actually measure competing explanations for this increase in atmospheric energy and find that they cannot be the cause.
Continually repeating your own unsubstantiated rhetoric does not make it more true.
Neither does a claimed concensus equal truth.
You are clearly unworthy of my efforts in debating you. If you find something substantial to contribute send me a PM and I will read it. Meanwhile I will yawn in anticipation.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Nonsense, both cultures survive in extremes of temperature. Eskimo's aren't an analogy, they are an example. They are living testament to man's ability not to be wiped out by a climatic change in temperaure of + or - 4 degrees. Not only does man survive and even prosper in those enviroments, but all the animal/vegetable resources he needs, do to. If the world gets hotter, then the species from hot climates will prosper and spread. If it get's colder then the species that are better adapted to the colder climates will prosper and spread. As you have elaborated, the species of man already has all the necessary technology to survive any such a paltry change.
While I agree with your position in whole, Eskimo's prospering? Come on. We all know they live in cities like Whitehorse and Yellowknife and all they do is sniff gas all day to keep from going insane.
And btw. It's a alot fucking colder in Yellowknife that just + or - 4 dergee's (C)
Does it matter how it was caused or even if there is actually a problem? The bottom line is if you don't constantly work to better yourself life will kick your ass and make you in not fun ways. Just look at MMO players and Paris Hilton
This is a beauty... it speaks reams about the pseudo science of "man made climate change"
Here is a so called reputable green site and here is a quote :
"In short, scientists know rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected. As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate’s response to changes in the atmosphere. The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.”
Two major points....
1. The number of variables and assumptions renders the entire math exercise a complete nonsense and it even says so!!
2. And the best bit.... “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years" an honest acknowledgement of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that the climate has warmed faster and for longer and to a greater maximum temperature than is currently predicted in the worst doomsday nonsense scenarios.......during the Holocene Maxim period...
Setting Up and Hosting a Website on Climate Change $20,000
Hiring a bunch of leftist hippies to research your crap $100,000
Having to tell the truth despite yoursrelf $priceless
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[7]
"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[8]
"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[9]
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions[12]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [13]
There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. [14]
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [3] adopted by the society in 2003 declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
"Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles, and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer."
"The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003."
"In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone)[15]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [17]
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [18]
American Association of State Climatologists
The statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate.[19]
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated, "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [20]
American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [21]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities.Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[22]
Statements by dissenting organizations
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Dr. Irwin Correy & the Shell answer man
The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[23] adopted in 1999,[24] states
"Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change...Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects."
As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [25] A proposed statement [26] makes no claim that recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic.
That's a lot of hippies.
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Ok, for all those who don't believe in global warming, you can at least think about the good that would come from cleaning up the environment. All the stuff that is being put into our air does affect our health and it's going to be worse for those that come behind us. Try to think of others if not yourself.
Again.... Utter confusion about the topic.... this topic is about Co2 driving the climate... Im a freakin broken record but this is the worst part of the climate change argument, everyone wants to divert the conversation on to dolphins getting thier noses caught in 6 packs holders... thats an entire nother debate. Please get that before one of us dies of old age.
And as for the IPCC quotes.... the first line or two is just priceless yet again.
""The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, isvery likelycaused by man,"
WOW!! Thats like conclusive scientific proof right there. The IPCC said it might be true so thats it ... its true...
Gotta love this new definition of science we are using to reach conclusions now.... science has never been easier.
I predict that in the near future all Beer will be FREE!!
YAY now we can expect free beer... who would have thought it was that easy!!
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
I'm watching a thing on global warming on the history channel right now and they had Al Gore spewing out worthless dribble. It really makes me mad because he was talking about how theres no debate to human cause of it, when in actuallity humans ARE NOT the cause...
This is the topic of the thread that the OP started so my post above is relevant.
Whether a person wants to call it global warming or pollution, the stuff we put into the air is harmful.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the major pollutants in the atmosphere. Major sources of CO2 are fossil fuels burning and deforestation. "The concentrations of CO2 in the air around 1860 before the effects of industrialization were felt, is assumed to have been about 290 parts per million (ppm). In the hundred years and more since then, the concentration has increased by about 30 to 35 ppm that is by 10 percent". (Breuer 67) Industrial countries account for 65% of CO2 emissions with the United States and Soviet Union responsible for 50%. Less developed countries (LDCs), with 80% of the world's people, are responsible for 35% of CO2 emissions but may contribute 50% by 2020. "Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing by 4% a year". (Miller 450)
In 1975, 18 thousand million tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to 5 thousand million tons of carbon) were released into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere showed an increase of only 8 billion tons (equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon". (Breuer 70) The ocean waters contain about sixty times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the equilibrium is disturbed by externally increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air, then the oceans would absorb more and more CO2. If the oceans can no longer keep pace, then more CO2 will remain into the atmosphere. As water warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced.
CO2 is a good transmitter of sunlight, but partially restricts infrared radiation going back from the earth into space. This produces the so-called greenhouse effect that prevents a drastic cooling of the Earth during the night. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reinforces this effect and is expected to result in a warming of the Earth's surface. Currently carbon dioxide is responsible for 57% of the global warming trend.
2. And the best bit.... “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years" an honest acknowledgement of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that the climate has warmed faster and for longer and to a greater maximum temperature than is currently predicted in the worst doomsday nonsense scenarios.......during the Holocene Maxim period...
Actually no, this is not fact.
There are no historical records of global temperature prior to 1989.
Just as the temperature gains in the future are predicitons, so are they from the past.
No one has any knowledge of what the temperature was during the Holocene Maxim period. A very small amount of people have hazarded educated guesses and then a statistician has taken a mean score from those guesses. This is not reliable data. There are not enough data sources, and the data sources have no demonstratable degree of accuracy. I use the word reliable in it's mathmatical sense.
Going back in time the data gets less and less reliable the further you go.
In the above an intresting post it should not be lost on anyone that the whole concept is based on an unmeasurable assumption. Someone's best guess. Just as the many models for the future are nothing more than predictions, so are our models of the past.
So beware, when you see that global temperature through the ages curve. It isn't factual. It is 1 persons guess only. The only part of that table which is reliable data is that recorded between 1989-2007, when the satelittes were launched.
Rainstar... you need to stop watching Fox news and pick up a book mate... calling Co2 a pollutant is like calling oxygen a pollutant. It is a common chemical compund that exists naturally.
Baff.... ya know what.... Im gonna conceed that one even though I could argue it and ya know why.... because that also invalidates the Ice Core data that the pro global warming folks use to substantiate most of their wild nonsense.
Your take on this debate is the most sensible post so far.
People seem to have lost the ability to recognise the difference between knowledge and belief in this age and it perplexes me how that simple premise could elude anyone.
So thanks, your argument helped.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Sad I got all facts backing up my argumentation in school, so I won't even try to debate with any of you who got facts.
I do however wonder if you yourselves believe we can keep on living like we do? You call the global warming a big propaganda, but isn't it the other way round? Does who are working against the global warming theory are those who are working with propaganda; they maybe doesn't get as much attention, but still...
You give links to all different kinds of sources, one being "The Big Climate Swindle" which actually is one of the biggest propagandas I've ever seen. They repeat the same thing over and over until you actually believe it, no matter how stupid the message is, and the message is indeed stupid.
You sit here and debate with each other if the Global Warming does exist, and if it's really our own cause. Does who argue against it, do you believe in yourselves? Do you feel better and think that your living is acceptable because you've seen a professor on Youtube telling you it isn't humans faults?
Let's say it isn't our own fault our planet gets hotter, it's still a huge problem! If the temperature raises 10 degrees all methane "trapped" in the seas will be released. No matter what you want to believe, this is going to be a serious problem if it happens. All methane in the seas 10 times as much as all fossil fuel on our planet. Methane is also the "strongest" fossil fuel. I could just say it would be close to the end of the world.
And a raise of 10 degrees is actually not totally impossible. If we start cleaning our discharge of particles, cars and such does this. In nearly all smoke we discharge there are particles. These particles then stay up in the air and float around there.
Clouds are created when condensed water get caught on "condensation particles". Clouds "drop" their water when they got too much water on them, which makes them too heavy and forced to let go of some. The more condensation particles it's in the air, the more clouds will be created before they are heavy enough to let go of the water, and start raining. These particles we discharge in smoke (including cigarettes) works as condensation particles.
We do so there are more condensation particles in the air, therefore more clouds are created and it takes longer for the rain to fall. A few years ago the summer monsoons in Asia failed to come; one year of no rain was hard, but not many died, however the rains failed to come in 3-4 years! This created a big disaster. We were lucky, Asia isn't as dependent on the summer rains as Africa. If the summer monsoons (maybe it's winter...) would fail to come in Africa we could count the deaths in millions.
The reason behind why the summer monsoon failed to come was that there were too many condensation particles in the air, thus making the clouds more, but lighter and therefore floating further before raining, which also was a disaster. It came too much rain and at the wrong place.
Now many countries are spending a lot of effort on cleaning their discharge so there will be less (condensation) particles in the air. But there is another problem with all these particles: They hide the full effect of the global warming.
There are so many particles in the air that they actually block out part of the suns beams, and yes this has been proved, if some1 is very interested in it I could say how they proved it, just not now. So what we see now isn't the full effect of the Global Warming, it's just a small bit of it.
When the degrees rise with around 3 or something the chances are big that there will be more forest fires, which will make even more CO2 being released, and this is quite a lot. If we on top of this also try to cleanse our discharge of particles we will create a raise of temperature on earth. And this raise of temperature will be pretty close to 10 degrees.
So even if you doesn't believe in the existence of us making the planet warmer, the global warming is still a big problem. I don't think any scientist can deny the fact that the temperature on earth is raising.
I wonder why I never can write a short answer, always has to be a damn essay. Don't just quote one part of my text and highlight a misspelling in my text please.
Comments
Incorrect. There were plenty saying we needed to find out more because if the pattern from the last million years persisted we were due to enter another ice age, but the accepted view of the scientific community at the time was that we needed to learn more and learn it quickly, not that were plunging into another ice age.
That doesnt seem like the type of thing you would have peer reviewed papers on. Are you sure you know what a scientific paper is?
Do your own bloody research. The facts are as I stated. The published material on the subject is on the side of human caused global warming by an overwhelming margin.
For example a paper (itself published and peer reviewed) in 2003 evaluated the 928 papers published in the journal Science between 1993 and 2003 with the phrase climate change. 75% explicitly or implicitly came on the side of human caused global warming. 25% confined themselves to methods and took no position at all. Not even one paper came in against human caused global warming.
The observational evidence is that the earth is warming at the fastest rate in nearly 100 years at the same time as we are dumping gigatonnes of a compound known to trap energy in the atmosphere. We can also go beyond observing and actually measure competing explanations for this increase in atmospheric energy and find that they cannot be the cause.
A documentory worth watching...
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=522784499045867811
Has some great insight on why the debate over global warming wasn't over long ago.
Either we do something and there is global warming. Perfect
If we try to do something, but it makes no difference because global warming happens despite what we do or don't do, then option 3 is far from perfect. If you want a worst case scenario, it would be: We do something, we get the economic crisis from option 2 AND the disaster from option 4.
And yet Taureg and Eskimo's both survive in climates far more more varied than 4 degrees.
Neither is the balance of nature static. It changes every instance of every day. As one organism dies out, another moves in to colonise the free resources.
The balance is anything but fragile. Millions of lifeforms have become extinct without life ever once ending.
Humans are are about as resilient to changes in the enviroment as any lifeform in the history of the planet has ever been.
There are plenty of fever inducing microscopic bacteria out there already. Always have been always will be. New ones evolve every day. Man has never been better equiped and had better success dealing with these organisms than in the CO2 producing industrial age.
I'll play the absoolute game with you.
Option 2 triggers global economic meltdown. War, plague and famine. The established economies hobble themselves and restrict the emegence of new economies. That which was a supportable infrastructure no longer is, hundreds of millions of people starve worldwide. Hundreds of millions of people lose their access to medecine world wide, as the increased prices of manufacture simply deny themreasonable supply. The world peace secured by the existing order of superpowers collapses. In the power vacuum that ensues chaos and death reign. War after War on a Global scale not seen for 60 years.
Option 4 also occours from several thousands other reasons, all infinitely more immediately pressing and likely to occour than Global Warming. By the time Global Warming gets round to killing us, we are already long since dead.
In your scenario, not radically changing an effective and successful economic model produces economic meltdown.
In my scenario, radically changing an effective and successful economic model produces economic meltdown.
I prefer mine. If it's not broke, don't fix it.
I don't let people without a track history of mechanical success mess with my cars engine. Neither am I keen to let a load of pot smoking hippies mess with our industry. In fact the only thing Hippes do well is grow pot. So if they aren't telling you how to grow pot, seek advice elsewhere.
I would suggest that when it comes to decisions affecting the global economy, that you leave them to the people who know most about them. In this case, that would be international industrialists. Hippies hate them, but they know best. Further to this, if you were intrested in maintaining a successful economy, if you were intrested in it's radical reform, I would look to the advice of the current world leaders and highest achievers. India, China and the U.S. for guidance, instead of taking the advice of the stagnating and floundering economies of Europe.
That said, if we Europeans could convince the U.S., India and China to all curb their production....to all become as non productive as we are...then we might be able to take over!
No way!
You dissed Patrick Moore in favour of Michael Moore!
If you base scientific qualification on the review of your peers, who is better placed in life to make this review than Patrick Moore? All the greatest scientists in the last 70 years are his peers. He has interviewed all those to be found in the fields of astronomy and planetology. Asked all of them their opinions.
Always bet on Patrick Moore.
C02. And us humans only cause roughly 5% of that. Volcanoes cause the majority of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of you don't really know what you're talking about here. All the volcanoes in the world cause only a fraction of the amount of CO2 we manage to produce.
Look things up before you state them as facts. kthxbai.
I heard Termites and Cows and were the two biggest.
Opinions vary, I suppose.
That's not to say that Humans don't significantly contribute, my bet is we do. Even 5% would be a hell of a lot.
For one, Eskimo's aren't their own Ethnic minority, they're natives.
To stay warm, they wear Caribou pelts with the fur facing inwards towards they're skin.
The Igloo isn't a funny looking hut with no purpose.
The miracle of fire was also discovered by these people as well.
To ensure further warmth, they use a complex set of leather ropes to make sure that NO air gets in or out.
They still live up there in the great wide north and they still use Igloo's...
So I don't think the Eskimo's are a good analogy at all.
Taureg's (while I'm not horridly familiar with them.) live in the desert and also take drastic steps to keep make sure that their Core body temperature doesn't drop. Overall, that wasn't a good arguement...
Nonsense, both cultures survive in extremes of temperature. Eskimo's aren't an analogy, they are an example. They are living testament to man's ability not to be wiped out by a climatic change in temperaure of + or - 4 degrees.
Not only does man survive and even prosper in those enviroments, but all the animal/vegetable resources he needs, do to.
If the world gets hotter, then the species from hot climates will prosper and spread. If it get's colder then the species that are better adapted to the colder climates will prosper and spread.
As you have elaborated, the species of man already has all the necessary technology to survive any such a paltry change.
Oh sweet irony.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Continually repeating your own unsubstantiated rhetoric does not make it more true.
Neither does a claimed concensus equal truth.
You are clearly unworthy of my efforts in debating you. If you find something substantial to contribute send me a PM and I will read it. Meanwhile I will yawn in anticipation.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
And btw. It's a alot fucking colder in Yellowknife that just + or - 4 dergee's (C)
Does it matter how it was caused or even if there is actually a problem? The bottom line is if you don't constantly work to better yourself life will kick your ass and make you in not fun ways. Just look at MMO players and Paris Hilton
This is a beauty... it speaks reams about the pseudo science of "man made climate change"
Here is a so called reputable green site and here is a quote :
"In short, scientists know rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected. As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate’s response to changes in the atmosphere. The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability.”
Two major points....
1. The number of variables and assumptions renders the entire math exercise a complete nonsense and it even says so!!
2. And the best bit.... “would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years" an honest acknowledgement of the SCIENTIFIC FACT that the climate has warmed faster and for longer and to a greater maximum temperature than is currently predicted in the worst doomsday nonsense scenarios.......during the Holocene Maxim period...
Setting Up and Hosting a Website on Climate Change $20,000
Hiring a bunch of leftist hippies to research your crap $100,000
Having to tell the truth despite yoursrelf $priceless
Noodles.... I swear....
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/about_climate_change/category/Likely%20But%20Not%20Certain/
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Statements by concurring organizations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2]
"The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man, and will be unstoppable for centuries, ... . The phrase very likely translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man's burning of fossil fuels. That was the strongest conclusion to date, making it nearly impossible to say natural forces are to blame."[7]
"The report said that an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 more likely than not can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced."[8]
"On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues."[9]
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [10], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
In 2001, following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, sixteen national science academies issued a joint statement explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific conensus on climate change science. Among the signatories are the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Carribean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.[11]
U.S. National Research Council, 2001
In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [12]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:
American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:
American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [3] adopted by the society in 2003 declares its virtual certainty that rising levels of greenhouse gases will cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:
American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[4]
American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[5]
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone) [15]. The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Association for the Advancement of Science stated, "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." [16]
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
The Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London stated, "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." [17]
Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries. Furthermore, the potential implications of global climate change and the time scale over which such changes will likely occur require active, effective, long-term planning." [18]
American Association of State Climatologists
The statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate: "Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system. (...) The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate.[19]
American Chemical Society
The American Chemical Society stated, "The overwhelming balance of evidence indicates that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is the prudent and responsible course of action at this time. Although vigorous climate research is certainly needed to reduce uncertainties and to identify potential adverse effects, it should not forestall prudent action now to address the issue. ACS believes that public and private efforts today are essential to protect the global climate system for the well-being of future generations." [20]
American Quaternary Association
The American Quaternary Association stated, "Few credible scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The first government-led U.S. Climate Change Science Program synthesis and assessment report supports the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity." [21]
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
"Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities.Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[22]
Statements by dissenting organizations
American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Dr. Irwin Correy & the Shell answer man
The only major scientific organization that presently rejects the finding of significant human influence on recent climate is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[6] The AAPG Policy Statement on Climate Change Policy,[23] adopted in 1999,[24] states
As of May 2007, the AAPG is in the process of updating its statement, in part because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members." [25] A proposed statement [26] makes no claim that recent global warming is or is not primarily anthropogenic.
That's a lot of hippies.
The most important part of reading is reading between the lines.
Ok, for all those who don't believe in global warming, you can at least think about the good that would come from cleaning up the environment.
All the stuff that is being put into our air does affect our health and it's going to be worse for those that come behind us.
Try to think of others if not yourself.
Again.... Utter confusion about the topic.... this topic is about Co2 driving the climate... Im a freakin broken record but this is the worst part of the climate change argument, everyone wants to divert the conversation on to dolphins getting thier noses caught in 6 packs holders... thats an entire nother debate. Please get that before one of us dies of old age.
And as for the IPCC quotes.... the first line or two is just priceless yet again.
""The world's leading climate scientists said global warming has begun, is very likely caused by man,"
WOW!! Thats like conclusive scientific proof right there. The IPCC said it might be true so thats it ... its true...
Gotta love this new definition of science we are using to reach conclusions now.... science has never been easier.
I predict that in the near future all Beer will be FREE!!
YAY now we can expect free beer... who would have thought it was that easy!!
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
This is the topic of the thread that the OP started so my post above is relevant.
Whether a person wants to call it global warming or pollution, the stuff we put into the air is harmful.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is one of the major pollutants in the atmosphere. Major sources of CO2 are fossil fuels burning and deforestation. "The concentrations of CO2 in the air around 1860 before the effects of industrialization were felt, is assumed to have been about 290 parts per million (ppm). In the hundred years and more since then, the concentration has increased by about 30 to 35 ppm that is by 10 percent". (Breuer 67) Industrial countries account for 65% of CO2 emissions with the United States and Soviet Union responsible for 50%. Less developed countries (LDCs), with 80% of the world's people, are responsible for 35% of CO2 emissions but may contribute 50% by 2020. "Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing by 4% a year". (Miller 450)
In 1975, 18 thousand million tons of carbon dioxide (equivalent to 5 thousand million tons of carbon) were released into the atmosphere, but the atmosphere showed an increase of only 8 billion tons (equivalent to 2.2 billion tons of carbon". (Breuer 70) The ocean waters contain about sixty times more CO2 than the atmosphere. If the equilibrium is disturbed by externally increasing the concentration of CO2 in the air, then the oceans would absorb more and more CO2. If the oceans can no longer keep pace, then more CO2 will remain into the atmosphere. As water warms, its ability to absorb CO2 is reduced.
CO2 is a good transmitter of sunlight, but partially restricts infrared radiation going back from the earth into space. This produces the so-called greenhouse effect that prevents a drastic cooling of the Earth during the night. Increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reinforces this effect and is expected to result in a warming of the Earth's surface. Currently carbon dioxide is responsible for 57% of the global warming trend.
Actually no, this is not fact.
There are no historical records of global temperature prior to 1989.
Just as the temperature gains in the future are predicitons, so are they from the past.
No one has any knowledge of what the temperature was during the Holocene Maxim period. A very small amount of people have hazarded educated guesses and then a statistician has taken a mean score from those guesses. This is not reliable data. There are not enough data sources, and the data sources have no demonstratable degree of accuracy. I use the word reliable in it's mathmatical sense.
Going back in time the data gets less and less reliable the further you go.
In the above an intresting post it should not be lost on anyone that the whole concept is based on an unmeasurable assumption. Someone's best guess. Just as the many models for the future are nothing more than predictions, so are our models of the past.
So beware, when you see that global temperature through the ages curve. It isn't factual. It is 1 persons guess only. The only part of that table which is reliable data is that recorded between 1989-2007, when the satelittes were launched.
Rainstar... you need to stop watching Fox news and pick up a book mate... calling Co2 a pollutant is like calling oxygen a pollutant. It is a common chemical compund that exists naturally.
Baff.... ya know what.... Im gonna conceed that one even though I could argue it and ya know why.... because that also invalidates the Ice Core data that the pro global warming folks use to substantiate most of their wild nonsense.
Your take on this debate is the most sensible post so far.
People seem to have lost the ability to recognise the difference between knowledge and belief in this age and it perplexes me how that simple premise could elude anyone.
So thanks, your argument helped.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Sad I got all facts backing up my argumentation in school, so I won't even try to debate with any of you who got facts.
I do however wonder if you yourselves believe we can keep on living like we do? You call the global warming a big propaganda, but isn't it the other way round? Does who are working against the global warming theory are those who are working with propaganda; they maybe doesn't get as much attention, but still...
You give links to all different kinds of sources, one being "The Big Climate Swindle" which actually is one of the biggest propagandas I've ever seen. They repeat the same thing over and over until you actually believe it, no matter how stupid the message is, and the message is indeed stupid.
You sit here and debate with each other if the Global Warming does exist, and if it's really our own cause. Does who argue against it, do you believe in yourselves? Do you feel better and think that your living is acceptable because you've seen a professor on Youtube telling you it isn't humans faults?
Let's say it isn't our own fault our planet gets hotter, it's still a huge problem! If the temperature raises 10 degrees all methane "trapped" in the seas will be released. No matter what you want to believe, this is going to be a serious problem if it happens. All methane in the seas 10 times as much as all fossil fuel on our planet. Methane is also the "strongest" fossil fuel. I could just say it would be close to the end of the world.
And a raise of 10 degrees is actually not totally impossible. If we start cleaning our discharge of particles, cars and such does this. In nearly all smoke we discharge there are particles. These particles then stay up in the air and float around there.
Clouds are created when condensed water get caught on "condensation particles". Clouds "drop" their water when they got too much water on them, which makes them too heavy and forced to let go of some. The more condensation particles it's in the air, the more clouds will be created before they are heavy enough to let go of the water, and start raining. These particles we discharge in smoke (including cigarettes) works as condensation particles.
We do so there are more condensation particles in the air, therefore more clouds are created and it takes longer for the rain to fall. A few years ago the summer monsoons in Asia failed to come; one year of no rain was hard, but not many died, however the rains failed to come in 3-4 years! This created a big disaster. We were lucky, Asia isn't as dependent on the summer rains as Africa. If the summer monsoons (maybe it's winter...) would fail to come in Africa we could count the deaths in millions.
The reason behind why the summer monsoon failed to come was that there were too many condensation particles in the air, thus making the clouds more, but lighter and therefore floating further before raining, which also was a disaster. It came too much rain and at the wrong place.
Now many countries are spending a lot of effort on cleaning their discharge so there will be less (condensation) particles in the air. But there is another problem with all these particles: They hide the full effect of the global warming.
There are so many particles in the air that they actually block out part of the suns beams, and yes this has been proved, if some1 is very interested in it I could say how they proved it, just not now. So what we see now isn't the full effect of the Global Warming, it's just a small bit of it.
When the degrees rise with around 3 or something the chances are big that there will be more forest fires, which will make even more CO2 being released, and this is quite a lot. If we on top of this also try to cleanse our discharge of particles we will create a raise of temperature on earth. And this raise of temperature will be pretty close to 10 degrees.
So even if you doesn't believe in the existence of us making the planet warmer, the global warming is still a big problem. I don't think any scientist can deny the fact that the temperature on earth is raising.
I wonder why I never can write a short answer, always has to be a damn essay. Don't just quote one part of my text and highlight a misspelling in my text please.